Da Fuq

by **UnluckyPaladin** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:27 am

wellhellothere wrote:Why doesn't the girl appear to have any sense of choice in any of the things you've said? Oh, yeah. Because she doesn't. You write like female children are just uteruses with pigtails. It's really, really skeevy and disgusting. "Reserve a table at the sought after restaurant"? "The other guys all competed try to get in after dinner had already started"? "He was smart and grabbed a beautiful mate before there was competition for her"? Girls are not an investment for the future, when they become beautiful women. Everything you are saying is #######4. Women and men engage in mutually beneficial relationships, built upon shared experiences, love, trust, attraction and so on. Your prose describes a predator and prey scenario that doesn't -- and shouldn't -- apply to the current world. It's disgusting and harmful.

UnluckyPaladin wrote:
Ar Ciel wrote:Paladin...
So, what? They can also adopt a child. Is your genes that important to pass-on? If so, why? A adopted child can pretty much do the job of keeping the family's "alive". I don't understand why you NEED to have a baby.

From the scientific point of view of evolution, the point of life is to pass on your genes. I'm arguing that straight pedophilia can at least do better than homosexuality at this. It can't be less natural if it is more successful reproductively.

As Naxal said, an adopted child may satisfy a wish to have a child. But it does not count as success biologically speaking.

Actually, the greatest advantage human's have over other species is our intelligence -- our tool making, our survival skills. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's the teacher and the child raiser that's more vital than the genetic parent -- a kid raised by people with the time, money and opportunities to educate that kid will be a lot more successful in the modern world than one who's greatest achievement is being raised by the person who gave birth to it. Illnesses that, 20,000 years ago, would have resulted in that child's death (and the termination of that genetic line) are now not a barrier to reproduction or success. As much as humans are just animals ... in terms of modern society, we aren't actually identical.

Aside from that, another great issue is that humans have such a long juvenile period compared to other animals because it's important that we pass on these skills. Take the r/K selection theory -- (while not the most relevant, it's still a simple way to explain this). Humans are very much K-strategists -- we've sacrificed large litter numbers, rapid maturation, and an early first experience of parenthood for a huge life expectancy, high parental investment (both in time and resources), long gestation periods and low infant mortality rates because, for us as a species, it's way, way better to live a long time, mature and learn than it is to give birth a lot. We as a species don't have the resources, or the physical characteristics, that would make mimicking the mating habits on mice worth it. For good reason, we've been pushing the average age of the first reproductive event (to use a life history theory term, crossing to a more relevant concept) back later and later.

These days, the "survival of the fittest" doesn't apply to the ones with the best genes. It's about the ones born into developed countries, possessing enough money to have as many kids as they want and put those kids through business school, before succumbing to an immune deficiency that would have wiped out one of their ancestors before the age of 10. After all, who do you think has been more beneficial to the advancement of society as a whole -- Stephen Hawking, who will be survived by his three very successful children, or your "pedo ... the one guy smart attractive", who might be physically at the top of his game but provides absolutely nothing to society as a whole, and whose only offspring is the rape baby he produces with the child that he -- like, owns I assume you mean, when you talk about lady-children as food at the table? Because it's pretty ######6 clear which of those two sets of offspring are better off.

Don't try to use science or evolution to defend the fact that you want to ###$ children. You are being wrong so very hard.

I'm talking here about mating at the base strategy level. Women also have their strategic mating interests. They often go for the strongest and most powerful males. While males often go for the most attractive mate they can get. Pedophilia sometimes made good strategic sense in other times, being that it got you an attractive mate before competition got intense. Females can just as easily talk about strategy for landing their idea of an attractive mate. And they do.

If I was talking about mating from a female perspective, I could also use analogies based on food or whatever. It doesn't mean men are food. And it doesn't mean that women are food. They are just analogies. People often use them while arguing something.

Do I really need to use male and female examples for every single thing I say, for fear of someone piping up with "you think you own women, don't you?" No actually, it was the furthest thing from my mind. As I have admitted here before I can't even get a female that is attractive to me (just average and not a whale would do. This doesn't make me wrong what I write something, either), I sure have no delusionals of owning them. Only talking strategy. Basic game theory type strategy.

Getting an attractive mate is a very competitive business for a lot of guys (and women, okay?!) If you don't want to end of with an unattractive one, the leftovers so to speak, in a very competitive dating market, then it could help to use some strategy to increase your chances of success. Just like with any other game. Even life is a game, so I can sure call dating one.

I'm just saying that pedophlic strategies would have some strategic use in this game of dating and mating, if they were allowed to be utilized. It's only useless dating and mating wise because of society not allowing it. It's an artificially bad strategy, not naturally one.

And if you actually understood the basic ideas of evolution (I'm sure not an expert, but I read and watch experts), you would know that raising someone elses kid may give personal satisfaction in modern times, but evolution wise is actually a win for the person who's kid you raised, not you. That's evolution, like it or not.

And trying to use Stephen Hawking to make your (not accurate to the real ideas of evolution) point. He wouldn't approve.

I hope we can agree that Stephen Hawking is awesome, though. Should be no argument there.

As I said, pedophilic strategies are useless. If we're lining up people like show ponies then the best mate in 2013 is the one with the best education, the best career prospects, the highest income and so on. The person in the best position to provide for a child is the one who is allowed to grow up first themselves and cultivate these qualities, rather than reproducing the moment they're fecund. Your "pedophilic strategies" amount to what, ugh, I am grossly going to describe as picking fruit before it's ripe (because yes, people use metaphors in arguments, doesn't mean that they aren't still demeaning and dehumanising). So as I said, you're pretending something is true when it absolutely isn't.

"It's only useless dating and mating wise because of society not allowing it" -- actually, it's useless because the world isn't built like that. Whether or not society allows you to prey on children is irelevant to the fact that you preying on children is not a viable mating strategy. Maybe that can be attributed to the fact that our society values education and wealth over being able to conceive, and maybe you disagree with that, but the reality is -- the fact that so much of human survival is focused/reliant on learning and development rather than mating and reproducing is the reason why I can sit here on my computer in Aus and argue with someone half a world away. You realise that? Not f*cking children is the reason why we as a species have iPhones and trains, while rabbits live in holes in the ground.

by **Naxal321** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 6:12 am

wellhellothere wrote:Why doesn't the girl appear to have any sense of choice in any of the things you've said?

Interestingly enough, she has no sense of choice in any of the things you've said either. You automatically assume on no basis that she would not want to engage in sexual activity, even though children are sexual beings.

Women and men engage in mutually beneficial relationships, built upon shared experiences, love, trust, attraction and so on.

I have personally had many non-sexual relationships with children that were also build upon shared experiences, love, trust, and attraction. One little girl told her friend that she loved me, and another that she wished I was her big brother. What makes you think an adult and a child cannot engage in a mutually beneficial relationship?

Your prose describes a predator and prey scenario that doesn't -- and shouldn't -- apply to the current world. It's disgusting and harmful.

The notion that all sexual relationships between adults and children resemble a predator and prey dynamic is ludicrous. Are the following examples also "predator and prey scenarios"?:

Strozier, quoting the Psychologist on his relationship as a child:

"I had this private tutor, who was a very important person in my life. He would take me to museums and swimming and concerts and we had endless intellectual conversations and played complicated intellectual games and played chess together" They also did sexual things together, which they both enjoyed, but Kohut felt the sex was more or less incidental. The important thing for him was the relationship. He said "I was an only child. So it was in some way psychologically life-saving for me. I was very fond of this fellow." Heinz was about 10 or 11 at the time. He describes his years with his tutor as being perhaps the happiest ones in his life."

(Love and attraction: an international conference, p. 501.)

"Perhaps you cannot imagine this but when I was 12 I was very much in love with a man of 50 and he with me. I don't know who made the first move but we stroked each other and experienced sexuality together. It relaxed me wonderfully. One day my parents found out and the police were called in. The examination was terrible; I denied it and denied it again. Then I gave in. My older friend was arrested. My parents, after my forced confession, made out a formal complaint. Nothing could be of help any more. I have never been able to forget this. It wasn't just. It could have been such a beautiful memory. I am married and have four children. I would not object to their having sexual contacts with adults. I regard it as positive."

by **wellhellothere** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 6:40 am

You know what? I'm actually not remotely interested in arguing whether or not relationships between children and adults are inherently wrong with you. That's not what this thread is about, this thread is arguing the advantages of pedophilia as an orientation in terms of evolution. If you want to debate the merits of child-f*cking, go do that on one of the half dozen threads within which that is the topic of conversation.

Naxal321 wrote:
wellhellothere wrote:Why doesn't the girl appear to have any sense of choice in any of the things you've said?

Interestingly enough, she has no sense of choice in any of the things you've said either. You automatically assume on no basis that she would not want to engage in sexual activity, even though children are sexual beings.

Children can't give consent. That is just a fact. They can't drink alcohol, their parents make their medical decisions and decide what school they go to and how they spend at least the first 15 years of their lives. You think the capacity for speech is all that's needed for a child to demonstrate the cognitive functions required for decisions like that? You think "want" is the same as "comprehends"? No. Children may be capable of wanting sexual activity but maybe, just maybe, that doesn't make it acceptable. When I was 10 I wanted to be Batman, that doesn't make it okay if I do something risky like jump off a roof. A reasonable adult would stop me. We as a society have a responsibility towards children that sometimes includes making their choices for them -- the difference between what you and I say is that the choices I believe in are made for the child's benefit, while the choices you believe in are made for the benefit of your c*ck.

Women and men engage in mutually beneficial relationships, built upon shared experiences, love, trust, attraction and so on.

I have personally had many non-sexual relationships with children that were also build upon shared experiences, love, trust, and attraction. One little girl told her friend that she loved me, and another that she wished I was her big brother. What makes you think an adult and a child cannot engage in a mutually beneficial relationship?

Oh yes, they can. I'm not saying children and adults can't have meaningful relationships -- parent-child, older relative--younger relative, teacher-student bonds are all vital and valuable to the well being of a child. I just believe that introducing sex into such relationships (thus violating the "non-sexual" clause in your statement) isn't possible. That sort of relationship benefits the adult and puts the child in danger.

I want to only argue evolution with you on this thread. Admittedly this reply deviates from that, but I'd like to point out that you still haven't actually addressed any of the points that I made in my previous points, just made irrelevant comments about secondary issues.

by **GinaSmith** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:54 am

Given that the average onset of menarche is not fixed (in the West it has fallen from around 14 to 12.8 over the past century or so, presumed due to seismic shifts in diet), it makes sense to me that a species should be equally flexible when it comes to age ranges of attraction. Whether this flexibility is genetic or culturally shaped I don't know, but the flexibility itself is a biological advantage for the species as a whole.

On the subject of normal/natural, I'd like to reanimate a thread I created: here.

Da Fuq

Re: Da Fuq

ADVERTISEMENT

Re: Da Fuq

Re: Da Fuq

Re: Da Fuq

Re: Da Fuq

Re: Da Fuq

Who is online